Shuvonn Lemarie Hancock v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SHERMAN DIVISION SHUVONN LEMARIE HANCOCK, § § Plaintiff, § § v. § Case No. 4:25-cv-890-JDK § STATE FARM MUTUAL § AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE § COMPANY, § § Defendant. § ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE On August 15, 2025, Defendant removed this personal injury suit to federal court, invoking the Court’s diversity jurisdiction. The case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge K. Nicole Mitchell for findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations for disposition of this action.

Plaintiff’s counsel is not admitted to practice in the Eastern District of Texas.

Despite multiple warnings from the Clerk and the Magistrate Judge, Plaintiff’s counsel did not obtain admission to practice in the Eastern District of Texas or move to appear pro hac vice. See Docket Nos. 7 and 8.

Accordingly, Judge Mitchell issued a Report recommending that the complaint be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute. Docket No. 10. Shortly after Judge Mitchell issued her Report, Defendant filed an Agreed Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice due to the parties’ settlement of the case. Docket No. 11. Neither party objected to the Magistrate Judge’s Report, and Plaintiff has not contradicted Defendant’s representation that the Motion to Dismiss is agreed.

This Court reviews the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge de novo only if a party objects within fourteen days of service of the Report and Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). In conducting a de novo review, the Court examines the entire record and makes an independent assessment under the law.

Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc), superseded on other grounds by statute, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (extending the time to file objections from ten to fourteen days).

Here, no objections were filed. The Court therefore reviews Judge Mitchell’s findings for clear error or abuse of discretion and reviews her legal conclusions to determine whether they are contrary to law. See United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 918 (1989) (holding that, if no objections to a Magistrate Judge’s Report are filed, the standard of review is “clearly erroneous, abuse of discretion and contrary to law”).

Having reviewed the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendations, the Court finds no clear error or abuse of discretion and no conclusions contrary to law.

Accordingly, the Court hereby ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge (Docket No. 10) as the findings of this Court.

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), it is ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED for failure to prosecute. Dismissal for failure to prosecute is generally without prejudice. However, in light of the parties’ Agreed Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice (Docket No. 11) suggesting that the parties have settled this case, it is ORDERED that the dismissal here is WITH PREJUDICE.

So ORDERED and SIGNED this 9th day of January, 2026.

G5, Kom UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE